Re: Ports upgrade policy
Mike Loiterman wrote: This is my supfile: *default host=cvsup1.FreeBSD.org *default base=/usr *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs *default tag=RELENG_6_0 *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all *default tag=. ports-all doc-all I have been using it like this for years, obviously changing to the latest release tag. I haven't had problem and I'm not having problems, but my question is this: Is it advisable to sync my source to RELEASE, but to CURRENT for ports? Typically, I upgade my ports a few days after they get updated so I'm always running the latest version, but would it be better to sync both ports and source to RELEASE? Hi Mike, It would be nice I guess if ports were tagged like src but they are not. Basically HEAD is all there is vis-a-vis tags. You can specify a specific date however. Duane Obviously, it depends, somewhat, on personal choice, but in terms of stablity and correctness which is better? -- Mike Loiterman grantADLER Tel: 630-302-4944 Fax: 773-442-0992 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 0xD1B9D18E ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ports upgrade policy
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:18:13AM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: Mike Loiterman wrote: This is my supfile: *default host=cvsup1.FreeBSD.org *default base=/usr *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs *default tag=RELENG_6_0 *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all *default tag=. ports-all doc-all I have been using it like this for years, obviously changing to the latest release tag. I haven't had problem and I'm not having problems, but my question is this: Is it advisable to sync my source to RELEASE, but to CURRENT for ports? Typically, I upgade my ports a few days after they get updated so I'm always running the latest version, but would it be better to sync both ports and source to RELEASE? Hi Mike, It would be nice I guess if ports were tagged like src but they are not. Basically HEAD is all there is vis-a-vis tags. You can specify a specific date however. Ports *are* tagged for each release, but they are not branched. Duane Obviously, it depends, somewhat, on personal choice, but in terms of stablity and correctness which is better? -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ports upgrade policy
Erik Trulsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:18:13AM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: Mike Loiterman wrote: This is my supfile: *default host=cvsup1.FreeBSD.org *default base=/usr *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs *default tag=RELENG_6_0 *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all *default tag=. ports-all doc-all I have been using it like this for years, obviously changing to the latest release tag. I haven't had problem and I'm not having problems, but my question is this: Is it advisable to sync my source to RELEASE, but to CURRENT for ports? Typically, I upgade my ports a few days after they get updated so I'm always running the latest version, but would it be better to sync both ports and source to RELEASE? Hi Mike, It would be nice I guess if ports were tagged like src but they are not. Basically HEAD is all there is vis-a-vis tags. You can specify a specific date however. Ports *are* tagged for each release, but they are not branched. Yes, I know, which is why I asked the question...which is better? -- Mike Loiterman grantADLER Tel: 630-302-4944 Fax: 773-442-0992 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 0xD1B9D18E ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ports upgrade policy
On 3/14/06, Mike Loiterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Trulsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:18:13AM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: Mike Loiterman wrote: Is it advisable to sync my source to RELEASE, but to CURRENT for ports? Typically, I upgade my ports a few days after they get updated so I'm always running the latest version, but would it be better to sync both ports and source to RELEASE? It would be nice I guess if ports were tagged like src but they are not. Basically HEAD is all there is vis-a-vis tags. You can specify a specific date however. Ports *are* tagged for each release, but they are not branched. Yes, I know, which is why I asked the question...which is better? As I understand it, release tagsare static. If you specify a release tag, you get the ports as they were at the time of that release. Ports don't branch with releases, so if you want updated ports, you use tag=. - Bob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ports upgrade policy
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:35:46 -0600, Mike Loiterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Erik Trulsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Is it advisable to sync my source to RELEASE, but to CURRENT for ports? Typically, I upgade my ports a few days after they get updated so I'm always running the latest version, but would it be better to sync both ports and source to RELEASE? [snip] Ports *are* tagged for each release, but they are not branched. Yes, I know, which is why I asked the question...which is better? Considerations I can think of - (1) Advantage of using -HEAD (-CURRENT): Updates to ports may include security fixes. (2) Disadvantage of using -HEAD (-CURRENT): It is possible, though perhaps not likely, that an updated port would require something your -RELEASE base system lacked. Jud ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
